R v Wang

Case [2009] NZCA 118 6 April 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA505/2008
[2009] NZCA118
THE QUEEN
v
YI WANG
Hearing:1 April 2009

Court:Robertson, Gendall and Keane JJ
Counsel:P J Kaye for Appellant

J M Jelas for Crown

Judgment:6 April 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

APPEAL AGAINST LENGTH OF MINIMUM PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT ALLOWED, AND THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED FROM FIVE YEARS TO FOUR YEARS.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gendall J)
Introduction
[1]       The appellant pleaded guilty to 14 charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Arms Act 1983 involving supplying methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of semi-automatic rifles and ammunition, and offering to supply methamphetamine. He was sentenced to an effective term of eight years three months’ imprisonment on the lead charge of supplying methamphetamine and ordered to serve a minimum non parole period of five years’ imprisonment . In respect of the other charges he was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment varying between six months and three years. He appeals against the imposition of a minimum non parole period of imprisonment and in the alternative, the length of it.
Background evidence
[2]       On 2 December 2005 Police Officers located on the appellant six ecstasy tablets, $4,000 in cash in $100 notes and a loaded .22 calibre firearm disguised as a ballpoint pen. A search of the appellant’s hotel room revealed a small quantity of methamphetamine, cannabis and methamphetamine pipes, together with empty snaplock deal bags, plastic straws and butane gas lighters, together with six rounds of .22 calibre ammunition.
[3]       About three months later, the Police executed a search warrant at the appellant’s home address in Pakuranga. They found 78.5 grams of methamphetamine in a cardboard box, having an estimated street value of approximately $80,000. Empty snaplock deal bags and electronic scales were also located. Two semi-automatic rifles and one cut down rifle, together with approximately 200 rounds of ammunition, were also located at the property. This offending occurred whilst the appellant was on bail in respect of the earlier drug related charges.
[4]       Notwithstanding those events the appellant continued to be involved in drug dealing activities involving methamphetamine in substantial quantities. Intercepted communications between the months of July and August 2006 revealed that whilst on bail the appellant offered to supply methamphetamine to others.
[5]       A disputed facts hearing was held, and the Judge was required to make factual findings as to the meaning of the intercepted conversations. These were clearly in a code, well known to be adopted by drug dealers and purchasers. The Judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the discussions related to the supply of one-ounce quantities of methamphetamine, which the appellant was offering to sell to others for around $12,000.
The Judge’s sentencing approach
[6]       Lang J fixed a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment in relation to the drug offences only to reflect the totality of the methamphetamine crimes falling into the top of the second category described by this…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Wang

Details

AGLC: R v Wang [2009] NZCA 118
Case: [2009] NZCA 118
Decision Date: 6 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of R v Wang involved the appellant, Yi Wang, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including supplying methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for supply, possession of semi-automatic rifles and ammunition, and offering to supply methamphetamine. The appellant was sentenced to an effective term of eight years three months’ imprisonment for the primary charge, with a mandatory minimum non-parole period of five years. Wang appealed against the length of the minimum non-parole period. The court was tasked with determining whether the imposition of the minimum non-parole period was necessary and, if so, the appropriate length of such a period.

The court considered the nature and gravity of Wang's offending, which involved large-scale drug dealing and possession of firearms while on bail for prior drug-related charges. The court acknowledged that the offending warranted a significant prison sentence, but also noted mitigating factors such as the appellant's guilty plea and lack of prior convictions in New Zealand. The court found that while a minimum non-parole period was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences, the length of five years was excessive. The court held that a more appropriate minimum non-parole period would be four years, representing a little under 50 percent of the finite sentence.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent that the minimum non-parole period was reduced from five years to four years’ imprisonment. This decision reflected the need to balance the seriousness of the offences with the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders